Law Commons^™

Passing The Torch But Sailing Too Close To The Wind: Congress’S Role In Authorizing Administrative Branches To Promulgate Regulations That Contemplate Criminal Sanctions, Reem Sadik

Legislation and Policy Brief

The Supreme Court has stated that Congress must simply “lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle” to which the agency must conform. If this is done, a court will find the delegation of broad authority to the agency to be constitutional. There is, however, an open issue regarding whether the “intelligible principle” standard applies to delegations of authority that allow for the promulgation of both civil and criminal penalties. In Touby v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked whether “something more than an ‘intelligible principle’ is required” when Congress authorizes an agency to issue regulations that contemplate …

A Different Kind Of Justice: A Critical Reflection, Cassandra Sharp Dr

RadioDoc Review

Despite the accepted success of many restorative justice programs with youth and Indigenous offenders, debate still proliferates about the utility of adult restorative justice programs within the criminal justice system. Many important questions are raised about the efficacy and impact of such programs including: ‘What can restorative justice offer adult offenders and victims of crime? What are some of the challenges of using restorative justice in this context? And what can we learn from emerging developments in practice?’ (Bolitho et al, 2012). As will be discussed in this review, Russell Finch’s BBC Radio 4 production of A Different Kind of …

Determining The Extent Of The Work For Hire Doctrine And Its Effect On Termination Rights, Allison E. Dolzani

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Do No Harm": A Comparative Analysis Of Legal Barriers To Corporate Clinical Telemedicine Providers In The United States, Australia, And Canada, Ian R. Landgreen

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Cgmp Violations Should Not Be Used As A Basis For Fca Actions Absent Fraud, Kyle Faget

Seattle University Law Review

Since Congress amended the False Claims Act (FCA) in 1986, the statute has evolved into a seemingly boundless weapon for enforcing other statutes and regulations applicable to every industry that accepts any form of government funding. Use of the FCA by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and by private citizens bringing actions on behalf of the U.S. government to enforce other statutes and regulations is particularly evident in the field of health care. The FCA has been utilized in actions where the allegations include off-label promotion of drugs, kickbacks, and violations of current good manufacturing practices (cGMPs) by linking the …

Ironic Simplicity: Why Shaken Baby Syndrome Misdiagnoses Should Result In Automatic Reimbursement For The Wrongly Accused, Jay Simmons

Seattle University Law Review

Shaken baby syndrome (SBS)’s shortcomings include the debatable science behind SBS theory and diagnosis—the questioning of which has grown more vociferous—and the arguably biased, discriminatory treatment of the accused. Professor Deborah Tuerkheimer notes that the evolving SBS skepticism and contentious debate has resulted in "chaos" in many SBS adjudications and within the medical and biomechanical fields, with the same SBS proponents and opponents continually crusading for and clashing over their beliefs. The issues surrounding the medical and biomechanical components of SBS diagnoses have been repeatedly examined and discussed, and are not the focus of this Note. This Note recounts those …

Agency Costs And The False Claims Act, David Farber

Fordham Law Review

The False Claims Act represents the U.S. Justice Department’s most effective tool in detecting, punishing, and deterring fraud against the government. The effectiveness of the False Claims Act is due in large part to the law’s qui tam provisions, which provide a private right of action to whistleblowers who may sue fraudsters on behalf of the government in exchange for a percentage of the recovery. The resulting relationship between the government and whistleblowers has led to increased detection and recoveries from corporate defendants who defraud and abuse government programs.
However, these whistleblower provisions also come with social costs where profit-motivated …

Uniform Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Answer To Preventing Unscrupulous Agent Activity, Scott Kestenbaum

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This Note addresses whether there should be an arbitration and mediation section added to both the Uniform Athlete Agent Act (UAAA), and Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA) to establish a uniform dispute resolution process for dealing with unscrupulous acts of athlete agents. This issue is distinctive because while all four professional sports leagues’ players associations have specific arbitration procedures in their athlete agent regulations, the two statutes governing athlete agent conduct do not adopt a uniform policy relating to arbitration procedures. This Note addresses the prior history of state and federal legislation pertaining to an athlete agent, including …

Protecting The Innocent With A Premium For Child Safety Regulations, Jacob P. Byl

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Federal agencies regulate many products and activities that impact the safety of children. Agencies should put a premium on saving the lives of children when analyzing the costs and benefits of proposed regulations. This note uses original evidence from the infant car seat market to determine that a child-specific benefit measure should be one and a half to two times that of an adult. A child premium will encourage more regulations that protect the safety of our society's most precious and innocent members.

States, Agencies, And Legitimacy, Miriam Seifter

Vanderbilt Law Review

Scholarship on the administrative process has scarcely attended to the role that states play in federal regulation. This Article argues that it is time for that to change. An emerging, important new strand of federalism scholarship, known as "administrative federalism," now seeks to safeguard state interests in the administrative process and argues that federal agencies should consider state input when developing regulations. These ideas appear to be gaining traction in practice. States now possess privileged access to agency decisionmaking processes through a variety of formal and informal channels. And some courts have signaled support for the idea of a special …

Hierarchically Variable Deference To Agency Interpretations, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Notre Dame Law Review

When courts review agency action, they typically accord agency decisions a degree of deference. As many courts and commentators have recognized, the law in this area is complicated because it features numerous standards of review, including several distinct regimes for evaluating agencies’ legal interpretations. There is, however, at least one important respect in which uniformity rather than variety prevails: the applicable standards of review do not vary depending on which court is reviewing the agency. Whichever standard governs a particular case—Chevron, Skidmore, or something else—all courts in the judicial hierarchy are supposed to apply that same standard.

This Article proposes …

Why Should We Care About An Agency’S Special Insight?, Stephen M. Degenaro

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note offers some additional thoughts on the outer limits of Seminole Rock deference. Part I discusses the three concerns associated with unchecked Seminole Rock deference that comprise the self-delegation problem—violation of constitutional norms, exploitation of a statutory loophole, and perverse incentives. It explores the potential for abuse they create and recommends what the limitations should look like in order to avoid this potential. Part II explains the two rationales for Seminole Rock deference: the pragmatic and originalist rationales. It describes how the two rationales relate to each other, explains how courts use pragmatic and originalist arguments in their opinions, …

Stuck Between A Rock And A Hard Place: Are Public Accounting Firms Subject To Diverging Standards Of Conduct Between Federal Courts And The Pcaob In Securities Fraud Claims?, Pierre Ciric

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Multiple-Agency Delegations & One-Agency Chevron, William Weaver

Vanderbilt Law Review

Congress frequently delegates to agencies, and a host of Supreme Court decisions have articulated tests for determining what level of deference courts should give to agency interpretations of their statutory directives. Courts have historically undertaken these analyses in the context of a single agency. Congressional authorization of joint rulemaking authority is more complicated, however, and the traditional frameworks for review are inadequate.

When Congress delegates authority to multiple agencies, courts should review the agencies' rules with heightened deference. The traditional framework for judicial review of agency rules is ill equipped when rules are promulgated by multiple coordinated agencies. The prevalence …

Constitutional Conflict And Congressional Oversight, Andrew Mccanse Wright

Marquette Law Review

In matters of oversight, Congress and the President have fundamentally incompatible views of their institutional roles within the constitutional structure. This Article offers an explanation of divergent branch behavior and legal doctrine. Congress, much like a party to litigation, views itself as having fixed substantive rights to obtain desired information from the Executive and private parties. In contrast, the Executive views itself like a party to a business transaction, in which congressional oversight requests are the opening salvo in an iterative negotiation process to resolve competing interests between co-equal branches. In general, legislators want to litigate and executive officers want …

War Is Governance: Explaining The Logic Of The Laws Of War From A Principal-Agent Perspective, Eyal Benvenisti, Amichai Cohen

Michigan Law Review

What is the purpose of the international law on armed conflict, and why would opponents bent on destroying each other’s capabilities commit to and obey rules designed to limit their choice of targets, weapons, and tactics? Traditionally, answers to this question have been offered on the one hand by moralists who regard the law as being inspired by morality and on the other by realists who explain this branch of law on the basis of reciprocity. Neither side’s answers withstand close scrutiny. In this Article, we develop an alternative explanation that is based on the principal–agent model of domestic governance. …